Re: Two suggestions for gcc C compiler to extend C language (by WD Smith)

> On Jul 26, 2016, at 2:07 PM, Warren D Smith wrote: > > To the guy who falsely claimed MIPS fails to provide an add with carry > instruction, > a google search in 1 minute finds this: > > stackoverflow.com/questions/1281806/adding-two-64-bit-numbers-in-assembly > > I

Re: Two suggestions for gcc C compiler to extend C language (by WD Smith)

> On Jul 26, 2016, at 12:50 PM, Warren D Smith wrote: > > ... > Sigh. It's really hard to get compiler and language guys to do anything. I find it puzzling that you appear to think that insulting your audience is the best way to influence them. > ... > There is

Re: Machine constraints list

> On May 8, 2016, at 6:27 PM, David Wohlferd wrote: > > Looking at the v6 release criteria (https://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-6/criteria.html) > there are about a dozen supported platforms. > > Looking at the Machine Constraints docs >

Re: An abridged "Writing C" for the gcc web pages

> On Apr 22, 2016, at 12:21 PM, Bernd Schmidt wrote: > > (Apologies if you get this twice, the mailing list didn't like the html > attachment in the first attempt). > > We frequently get malformatted patches, and it's been brought to my attention > that some people

Re: Spurious register spill with volatile function argument

> On Mar 28, 2016, at 8:11 AM, Florian Weimer wrote: > > ... > The problem is that “reading” is either not defined, or the existing > flatly contradicts existing practice. > > For example, if p is a pointer to a struct, will the expression >m > read *p? Presumably the

Re: Is test case with 700k lines of code a valid test case?

> On Mar 18, 2016, at 12:53 PM, Paulo Matos wrote: > > > > On 18/03/16 15:02, Jonathan Wakely wrote: >> >> It's probably crashing because it's too large, so if you reduce it >> then it won't crash. >> > > Would be curious to see what's the limit though, or if it depends

Re: Is test case with 700k lines of code a valid test case?

> On Mar 14, 2016, at 12:05 PM, C Bergström wrote: > > I don't speak with any community authority - I think your test tool is > misconfigured then. I don't see any pragmatic reason to generate such > a test. It's unlikely to mirror any real world code and artificial >

Re: Is test case with 700k lines of code a valid test case?

> On Mar 14, 2016, at 11:31 AM, Andrey Tarasevich > wrote: > > Hi, > > I have a source file with 700k lines of code 99% of which are printf() > statements. Compiling this test case crashes GCC 5.3.0 with segmentation > fault. > Can such test case be

Re: __builtin_memcpy and alignment assumptions

> On Jan 8, 2016, at 6:32 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 08, 2016 at 12:24:49PM +0100, Eric Botcazou wrote: >>> See some existing PR. The GCC middle-end cannot assume that pointers >>> are aligned according to their type (while at least the C language would >>>

Re: basic asm and memory clobbers - Proposed solution

> On Dec 15, 2015, at 7:52 AM, Bernd Schmidt wrote: > > On 12/14/2015 09:10 AM, Segher Boessenkool wrote: >> That, and adding a memory clobber degrades performance for a lot of >> existing basic asm that does not expect the clobber, e.g. asm(""), >> asm("#"), asm("nop"),

Re: basic asm and memory clobbers - Proposed solution

> On Dec 15, 2015, at 5:22 PM, David Wohlferd wrote: > > On 12/14/2015 1:53 AM, Andrew Haley wrote: >> > This just seems like another argument for deprecating basic asm and >> > pushing people to extended. >> Yes. I am not arguing against deprecation. We should do

Re: basic asm and memory clobbers - Proposed solution

> On Dec 12, 2015, at 4:51 AM, Andrew Haley wrote: > > ... > You've missed the most practical solution, which meets most common > usage: clobber memory, but not registers. That allows most of the > effects that people intuitively want and expect, but avoids the > breakage of

Re: basic asm and memory clobbers - Proposed solution

> On Dec 3, 2015, at 12:29 AM, Bernd Edlinger wrote: > >> ... >> If the goal is to order things wrt x, why wouldn't you just reference x? >> >> x = 1; >> asm volatile("nop":"+m"(x)); >> x = 0; >> > > Exactly, that is what I mean. Either the asm can use

Re: basic asm and memory clobbers - Proposed solution

> On Nov 29, 2015, at 6:53 PM, David Wohlferd wrote: > > > > On 11/28/2015 10:30 AM, paul_kon...@dell.com wrote: >>> On Nov 28, 2015, at 2:02 AM, Bernd Edlinger >>> wrote: >>> >>> ... >>> Well, I start to think that Jeff is right, and we

Re: basic asm and memory clobbers - Proposed solution

> On Nov 28, 2015, at 2:02 AM, Bernd Edlinger wrote: > > ... > Well, I start to think that Jeff is right, and we should treat a asm ("") as > if it > were asm volatile ("" ::: ) but if the asm ("nonempty with optional %") we > should > treat it as asm volatile

Re: C++ order of evaluation of operands, arguments

> On Nov 25, 2015, at 1:25 PM, Martin Sebor wrote: > > On 11/24/2015 02:55 AM, Andrew Haley wrote: >> On 23/11/15 23:01, Jason Merrill wrote: >>> There's a proposal working through the C++ committee to define the order >>> of evaluation of subexpressions that previously had

Re: basic asm and memory clobbers

> On Nov 23, 2015, at 8:39 PM, David Wohlferd wrote: > > On 11/23/2015 1:44 PM, paul_kon...@dell.com wrote: >>> On Nov 23, 2015, at 4:36 PM, David Wohlferd wrote: >>> >>> ... The more I think about it, I'm just not keen on forcing all

Re: basic asm and memory clobbers

> On Nov 24, 2015, at 12:49 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 8:58 AM, wrote: >> >> I'm really concerned with loosening the meaning of basic asm. I >> wish I could find the documentation that says, or implies, that it >> is a

Re: basic asm and memory clobbers

> On Nov 23, 2015, at 4:36 PM, David Wohlferd wrote: > > ... >> The more I think about it, I'm just not keen on forcing all those old-style >> asms to change. > > If you mean you aren't keen to change them to "clobber all," I'm with you. > If you are worried about

Re: basic asm and memory clobbers

> On Nov 20, 2015, at 1:24 PM, Jeff Law wrote: > > On 11/20/2015 06:05 AM, Richard Henderson wrote: > >> ... >> It seems to me that it would be better to remove the feature, forcing >> what must be an extremely small number of users to audit and update to >> extended asm. >

Re: basic asm and memory clobbers

> On Nov 20, 2015, at 3:01 PM, Jeff Law wrote: > > On 11/20/2015 07:56 AM, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > > When basic asm changes, I expect that having a way to "just do what it > used to do" is going to be useful for some people. 24414 says the documented behaviour

Re: Git conversion: disposition of old branches and tags

> On Sep 16, 2015, at 4:38 AM, Richard Biener > wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 7:09 PM, Florian Weimer wrote: >> ... >> Unlike Subversion branch deletion, Git branch deletion is permanent, >> so this might not be the best option. > > We

Re: Compiler support for erasure of sensitive data

> On Sep 9, 2015, at 12:36 PM, Zack Weinberg wrote: > > ... > I think the ideal feature addition to address this would be > >void safe(void) >{ >struct key __attribute__((sensitive)) k = get_key(); >use_key(k); >} That certainly is a cleaner

Re: Compiler support for erasure of sensitive data

> On Sep 9, 2015, at 1:54 PM, David Edelsohn wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 12:36 PM, Zack Weinberg wrote: > >> The ABI dictates basically everything you see. The call to >> explicit_bzero has forced the compiler to *create* a second copy of >> the

Re: Moving to git

On Aug 20, 2015, at 4:09 PM, Jason Merrill ja...@redhat.com wrote: On 08/20/2015 02:23 PM, Jeff Law wrote: ...As far as the trunk and release branches, are there any best practices out there that we can draw from? Obviously doing things like push-rebase-push is bad. Presumably there's

Re: Moving to git

On Aug 20, 2015, at 4:24 PM, Jason Merrill ja...@redhat.com wrote: On 08/20/2015 04:22 PM, paul_kon...@dell.com wrote: Let's make sure the procedures that people are supposed to follow are clearly documented. I recently went looking for the equivalent in the binutils/gdb project and it

Re: Is there a way to adjust alignment of DImode and DFmode?

On May 20, 2015, at 1:00 PM, H.J. Lu hjl.to...@gmail.com wrote: By default, alignment of DImode and DFmode is set to 8 bytes. When did that change? I know it was 4 in the past, unless you specifically passed a compile switch to make it 8. paul

Re: Is there a way to adjust alignment of DImode and DFmode?

On May 20, 2015, at 1:22 PM, Jakub Jelinek ja...@redhat.com wrote: On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 05:19:28PM +, paul_kon...@dell.com wrote: On May 20, 2015, at 1:00 PM, H.J. Lu hjl.to...@gmail.com wrote: By default, alignment of DImode and DFmode is set to 8 bytes. When did that change?

RE: PING^3: [PATCH]: New configure options that make the compiler use -fPIE and -pie as default option

From: gcc-patches-ow...@gcc.gnu.org [gcc-patches-ow...@gcc.gnu.org] on behalf of H.J. Lu [hjl.to...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2015 11:27 AM To: Joseph Myers Cc: Magnus Granberg; GCC Patches Subject: Re: PING^3: [PATCH]: New configure options that

Re: Questions about C as used/implemented in practice

On Apr 17, 2015, at 9:14 AM, Peter Sewell peter.sew...@cl.cam.ac.uk wrote: Dear gcc list, we are trying to clarify what behaviour of C implementations is actually relied upon in modern practice, and what behaviour is guaranteed by current mainstream implementations (these are quite

Re: inline asm clobbers

On Mar 11, 2015, at 8:53 PM, David Wohlferd d...@limegreensocks.com wrote: ... I would agree that one should avoid it. I'd be wary of removing it from GCC at this point since it might break working code. It certainly would. It’s not all that common, but I have seen this done in

Re: inline asm clobbers

On Mar 11, 2015, at 7:19 PM, Ian Lance Taylor i...@google.com wrote: On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 3:58 PM, David Wohlferd d...@limegreensocks.com wrote: Why does gcc allow you to specify clobbers using numbers: asm ( : : r (var) : 0); // i386: clobbers eax How is this better than

Re: Obscure crashes due to gcc 4.9 -O2 = -fisolate-erroneous-paths-dereference

On Feb 20, 2015, at 12:01 PM, Jeff Law l...@redhat.com wrote: On 02/20/15 04:43, Jonathan Wakely wrote: ... I'm inclined to agree. Most developers aren't aware of the preconditions on memcpy, but GCC optimizes aggressively based on those preconditions, so we have a large and

Re: Obscure crashes due to gcc 4.9 -O2 = -fisolate-erroneous-paths-dereference

On Feb 20, 2015, at 12:01 PM, Jeff Law l...@redhat.com wrote: ... Regardless, the right thing to do is to disable elimination of NULL pointer checks on targets where page 0 is mapped and thus a reference to *0 may not fault. In my mind this is an attribute of both the processor (see H8

Re: Android native build of GCC

On Feb 6, 2015, at 5:28 AM, Andrew Haley a...@redhat.com wrote: On 02/06/2015 10:18 AM, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote: ... Not sure what's not understood. IIUC you want to disable LTO when building gcc natively on Android? As LTO is considered a language, ??? LTO is considered a

Re: Branch taken rate of Linux kernel compiled with GCC 4.9

On Jan 13, 2015, at 7:44 AM, Alexander Monakov amona...@ispras.ru wrote: On Tue, 13 Jan 2015, Pengfei Yuan wrote: I use perf with rbf88:k,rff88:k events (Haswell specific) to profile the taken rate of conditional branches in the kernel. Here are the results: [...] The results are very

Re: volatile access optimization (C++ / x86_64)

On Jan 5, 2015, at 4:11 PM, DJ Delorie d...@redhat.com wrote: To try to generalize from that: it looks like the operating principle is that an insn that expands into multiple references to a given operand isn’t volatile-safe, but one where there is only a single reference is safe? No,

Re: volatile access optimization (C++ / x86_64)

On Jan 5, 2015, at 1:47 PM, DJ Delorie d...@redhat.com wrote: One question: do you have an example of a non-volatile-safe machine so I can get a feel for the problems one might encounter? At best I can imagine a machine that optimizes add 0, [mem] to avoid the read/write, but I'm not

Broken link on homepage

The “news” section first link points to https://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-5/“ which comes up “forbidden”. The other release links seem to be fine. paul

Re: volatile access optimization (C++ / x86_64)

On Jan 5, 2015, at 1:24 PM, DJ Delorie d...@redhat.com wrote: What is involved with the auditing? Each pattern that (directly or indirectly) uses general_operand, memory_operand, or nonimmediate_operand needs to be checked to see if it's volatile-safe. If so, you need to change the

Re: volatile access optimization (C++ / x86_64)

On Dec 30, 2014, at 1:32 PM, Matt Godbolt m...@godbolt.org wrote: On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 5:05 AM, Torvald Riegel trie...@redhat.com wrote: I agree with Andrew. My understanding of volatile is that the generated code must do exactly what the abstract machine would do. That makes sense.

Re: Bootstrap failure on Mac OS Yosemite (10.10)

On Dec 29, 2014, at 2:01 PM, paul_kon...@dell.com paul_kon...@dell.com wrote: I would bug this but bugz says to report things under “bootstrap” only if they are long lived failures, and I don’t know if this is. Just tried to build on my Mac OS 10.10 system, plain native build. It

Re: volatile access optimization (C++ / x86_64)

On Dec 26, 2014, at 6:19 PM, Andrew Haley a...@redhat.com wrote: On 26/12/14 22:49, Matt Godbolt wrote: On Fri, Dec 26, 2014 at 4:26 PM, Andrew Haley a...@redhat.com wrote: On 26/12/14 20:32, Matt Godbolt wrote: Is there a reason why (in principal) the volatile increment can't be made

Re: volatile access optimization (C++ / x86_64)

On Dec 27, 2014, at 1:40 PM, Andrew Haley a...@redhat.com wrote: On 27/12/14 18:04, Matt Godbolt wrote: On Sat, Dec 27, 2014 at 11:57 AM, Andrew Haley a...@redhat.com wrote: if you don't need an atomic access, why do you care that it uses a read-modify-write instruction instead of three

Re: Problems with gcc-bugs

On Sep 29, 2014, at 7:59 PM, George R Goffe grgo...@yahoo.com wrote: Jonathan, I'll give it a try. Thanks. What is the problem with the mailing list software? Can't handle rich-text? What a pain! I don’t know if that is true, but if so, a lot of people would argue that is a

Re: Remove LIBGCC2_HAS_?F_MODE target macros

On Sep 11, 2014, at 9:22 PM, Joseph S. Myers jos...@codesourcery.com wrote: This patch removes the LIBGCC2_HAS_{SF,DF,XF,TF}_MODE target macros, replacing them by predefines with -fbuilding-libgcc, together with a target hook that can influence those predefines when needed. The new default

Re: ViewVC is broken on your web site

On Aug 6, 2014, at 2:38 PM, David Gero david.g...@exfo.com wrote: Accessing https://gcc.gnu.org/viewvc/gcc/trunk/ Says it is showing 38 files. But in fact, it shows only the first 25. As an example, libstdc++-v3 is missing. Same thing happens in other parts of the tree. I checked

Re: ViewVC is broken on your web site

On Aug 6, 2014, at 2:59 PM, Paolo Carlini paolo.carl...@oracle.com wrote: Hi, On 08/06/2014 08:48 PM, paul_kon...@dell.com wrote: On Aug 6, 2014, at 2:38 PM, David Gero david.g...@exfo.com wrote: Accessing https://gcc.gnu.org/viewvc/gcc/trunk/ Says it is showing 38 files. But in

Re: [PATCH 8/8] Add a common .md file and define standard constraints there

On Jun 12, 2014, at 3:24 PM, Segher Boessenkool seg...@kernel.crashing.org wrote: On Thu, Jun 05, 2014 at 10:43:25PM +0100, Richard Sandiford wrote: This final patch uses a common .md file to define all standard constraints except 'g'. I had a look at what targets still use g. Note:

Re: soft-fp functions support without using libgcc

On May 16, 2014, at 12:25 PM, Ian Bolton ian.bol...@arm.com wrote: On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 6:34 AM, Sheheryar Zahoor Qazi sheheryar.zahoor.q...@gmail.com wrote: I am trying to provide soft-fp support to a an 18-bit soft-core processor architecture at my university. But the problem is that

Re: Builtin: stack pointer

On Mar 27, 2014, at 6:38 AM, Renato Golin renato.go...@linaro.org wrote: On 27 March 2014 10:29, Andreas Schwab sch...@suse.de wrote: Depends on what you need the value for. Mostly unwind code that uses both FP and SP, example: But unwind code is inherently platform-dependent. Your

Re: linux says it is a bug

On Mar 5, 2014, at 10:07 AM, Richard Henderson r...@redhat.com wrote: On 03/04/2014 10:12 PM, Yury Gribov wrote: Asms without outputs are automatically volatile. So there ought be zero change with and without the explicit use of the __volatile__ keyword. That’s what the documentation

Re: linux says it is a bug

On Mar 4, 2014, at 2:30 PM, Richard Henderson r...@redhat.com wrote: On 03/04/2014 01:23 AM, Richard Biener wrote: Doesn't sound like a bug but a feature. We can move asm ( : : : memory) around freely up to the next/previous instruction involving memory. Asms without outputs are

Re: [Patch, RTL] Eliminate redundant vec_select moves.

On Dec 10, 2013, at 9:50 AM, Kirill Yukhin kirill.yuk...@gmail.com wrote: Hello, On 09 Dec 14:08, H.J. Lu wrote: There are no regressions on Linux/x86-64 with -m32 and -m64. Can you check if it improves code quality on x886? That is exactly what I was talking about. However I wasn't sure

Re: [Patch, RTL] Eliminate redundant vec_select moves.

On Dec 10, 2013, at 2:12 PM, H.J. Lu hjl.to...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 11:05 AM, Tejas Belagod tbela...@arm.com wrote: ... So, if (subreg:DI (match_operand:V4SF 1 register_operand x,x) 0) is a valid subreg, why not allow it in CANNOT_CHANGE_MODE_CLASS (like in Kirill's

Re: Make SImode as default mode for INT type.

On Dec 6, 2013, at 5:40 AM, Umesh Kalappa umesh.kalap...@gmail.com wrote: Hi all, We are re-targeting the gcc 4.8.1 to the 16 bit core ,where word =int = short = pointer= 16 , char = 8 bit and long =32 bit. We model the above requirement as #define BITS_PER_UNIT 8

Re: Turn most genrecog warnings into errors

On Nov 22, 2013, at 3:43 AM, Richard Sandiford rdsandif...@googlemail.com wrote: genrecog does some useful sanity checks on the .md files. At the moment it only reports most of the problems as warnings though, which means you won't notice them unless you specifically look. I think the

Re: GCC retargeting

On Oct 9, 2013, at 5:24 AM, Umesh Kalappa umesh.kalap...@gmail.com wrote: Dear Group , We are re-targeting the GCC to the CISC target ,which has the eight 8-bit registers and same register set can used as pair register for 16 bit computation i.e four 16-bits . Any one in the group

Re: Automated Toolchain Building and Testing

On Aug 28, 2013, at 8:52 PM, Samuel Mi samuel.mi...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 2:54 AM, Jan-Benedict Glaw jbg...@lug-owl.de wrote: On Thu, 2013-08-29 02:43:54 +0800, Samuel Mi samuel.mi...@gmail.com wrote: ...or can you, instead of using the Java-based client part of Jenkins,

Re: Should -Wmaybe-uninitialized be included in -Wall?

On Jul 10, 2013, at 10:42 AM, Andi Kleen wrote: Andrew Haley a...@redhat.com writes: On 07/09/2013 12:59 PM, Andreas Arnez wrote: With this situation at hand, I wonder whether it's a good idea to keep maybe-uninitialized included in -Wall. Projects which have been using -Wall -Werror

Re: Should -Wmaybe-uninitialized be included in -Wall?

On Jul 10, 2013, at 12:44 PM, Jeff Law wrote: On 07/10/2013 10:29 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: On 10 July 2013 17:11, Andi Kleen wrote: FWIW basically -Werror -Wall defines a compiler version specific variant of C. May be great for individual developers, but it's always a serious mistake in

Re: 32 bit pointers on a 64 bit system

On Mar 6, 2013, at 7:38 AM, David McQuillan wrote: Have there been any implementations of gcc for a 32 bit pointer system where the registers are 64 bits long? MIPS (N32 ABI, and if you want, also O64) is another example. paul

Re: Use of templates in c code?

On Feb 13, 2013, at 5:04 PM, Diego Novillo wrote: ... Ah, so if we rename a file with 'svn rename', its history will be preserved across the rename? In that case, renaming files should not be a problem. Yes, that's one of many ways that SVN (or most other source control systems) are

Re: GCC 4.7.2 error handling type short

On Nov 26, 2012, at 3:57 PM, Bill Beech (NJ7P) wrote: I have run into a problem with both 4.6.1 and 4.7.2 of the gcc compiler handling type short. Sizeof(unsigned short) returns a length of 2 as expected, but when I use a union of a character buffer and some fields including a unsigned

[Bug debug/55063] [4.8 Regression] Thousands of failures in the libstdc++-v3 tests after revision 192739

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55063 Paul Koning paul_koning at dell dot com changed: What|Removed |Added CC

[Bug debug/54508] Wrong debug information emitted if data members not referenced

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54508 Paul Koning paul_koning at dell dot com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED

Re: PING^2: [patch] pr/54508: fix incomplete debug information for class

On Oct 5, 2012, at 6:05 PM, Cary Coutant wrote: There certainly is a fair amount of code in dwarf2read.c in gdb to handle DW_AT_declaration and do things differently for declarations. Should I rework this patch to use that mechanism instead? If so, how? If the class is marked only by

Re: PING^2: [patch] pr/54508: fix incomplete debug information for class

On Oct 23, 2012, at 2:02 PM, Jason Merrill wrote: OK. Jason Thanks. Committed. paul

Re: PING^2: [patch] pr/54508: fix incomplete debug information for class

On Oct 5, 2012, at 4:16 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: On Thu, Oct 04, 2012 at 05:26:11PM -0700, Cary Coutant wrote: Index: gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/debug/dwarf2/localclass1.C === --- gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/debug/dwarf2/localclass1.C

Re: PING^2: [patch] pr/54508: fix incomplete debug information for class

On Oct 5, 2012, at 11:34 AM, paul_kon...@dell.com paul_kon...@dell.com wrote: On Oct 5, 2012, at 4:16 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: On Thu, Oct 04, 2012 at 05:26:11PM -0700, Cary Coutant wrote: Index: gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/debug/dwarf2/localclass1.C

Re: PING^2: [patch] pr/54508: fix incomplete debug information for class

On Oct 5, 2012, at 2:43 PM, Cary Coutant wrote: It seems to me that there are cases where we just want to emit the class for the context info (like a namespace, which doesn't have to be complete everywhere). Is there a way to tell the debugger that this class declaration is incomplete and

Re: PING^2: [patch] pr/54508: fix incomplete debug information for class

On Oct 5, 2012, at 2:43 PM, Cary Coutant wrote: It seems to me that there are cases where we just want to emit the class for the context info (like a namespace, which doesn't have to be complete everywhere). Is there a way to tell the debugger that this class declaration is incomplete and

Re: PING^2: [patch] pr/54508: fix incomplete debug information for class

On Oct 5, 2012, at 6:05 PM, Cary Coutant wrote: There certainly is a fair amount of code in dwarf2read.c in gdb to handle DW_AT_declaration and do things differently for declarations. Should I rework this patch to use that mechanism instead? If so, how? If the class is marked only by

Re: PING^2: [patch] pr/54508: fix incomplete debug information for class

On Oct 4, 2012, at 1:38 PM, Cary Coutant wrote: /* We also have to mark its parents as used. -(But we don't want to mark our parents' kids due to this.) */ +(But we don't want to mark our parent's kids due to this, +unless it is a class.) */ if

Re: PING^2: [patch] pr/54508: fix incomplete debug information for class

Updated patch: there were two existing testcases that needed to be adjusted because of this fix. Ran check RUNTESTFLAGS=dwarf2.exp, no regressions. paul ChangeLog: 2012-10-04 Paul Koning n...@arrl.net * dwarf2out.c (prune_unused_types_mark): Mark all of parent's

Re: PING^2: [patch] pr/54508: fix incomplete debug information for class

On Oct 4, 2012, at 8:26 PM, Cary Coutant wrote: Index: gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/debug/dwarf2/localclass1.C === --- gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/debug/dwarf2/localclass1.C (revision 192048) +++

Re: PING^2: [patch] pr/54508: fix incomplete debug information for class

On Oct 4, 2012, at 8:26 PM, Cary Coutant wrote: Index: gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/debug/dwarf2/localclass1.C === --- gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/debug/dwarf2/localclass1.C (revision 192048) +++

Re: RFC: LRA for x86/x86-64 [4/9]

On Oct 1, 2012, at 2:51 PM, Richard Sandiford wrote: ... E.g. for MIPS, SImode loads and stores have a displacement range of [-32768, 32764], but DImode loads and stores only accept [-32768, 32760]. So the maximal displacement depends on mode, even though the instruction set is pretty

Re: [PATCH v2, rtl-optimization]: Fix PR54457, [x32] Fail to combine 64bit index + constant

On Sep 27, 2012, at 2:04 PM, Uros Bizjak wrote: I agree (subreg:M (op:N A C) 0) to (op:M (subreg:N (A 0)) C) is a good transformation, but why do we need to handle as special the case where the subreg is itself the operand of a plus or minus? I think it should happen regardless of

[Bug debug/54508] Wrong debug information emitted if data members not referenced

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54508 --- Comment #3 from Paul Koning paul_koning at dell dot com 2012-09-24 19:32:21 UTC --- Created attachment 28260 -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28260 Fix and testcase for this, as submitted to the gcc-bugs list I'm

Ping: [patch] pr/54508: fix incomplete debug information for class

Ping... paul Begin forwarded message: From: paul_kon...@dell.com Date: September 20, 2012 4:55:05 PM EDT To: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: [patch] pr/54508: fix incomplete debug information for class Attached below is an update to the testcase file, to fix the

[Bug debug/54508] Wrong debug information emitted if data members not referenced

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54508 --- Comment #2 from Paul Koning paul_koning at dell dot com 2012-09-17 21:31:29 UTC --- I just submitted a proposed fix to the gcc-patches list.

[DOC] Update -feliminate-unused-debug-types description

Currently the description of -feliminate-unused-debug-types says that it is off by default. In fact, it is on by default. The attached patch corrects the documentation to reflect that. Ok to commit? paul 2012-09-17 Paul Koning n...@arrl.net * doc/invoke.text

Re: [DOC] Update -feliminate-unused-debug-types description

On Sep 17, 2012, at 1:20 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 8:59 AM, paul_kon...@dell.com wrote: 2012-09-17 Paul Koning n...@arrl.net * doc/invoke.text (-feliminate-unused-debug-types): Update to reflect that this is enabled by default. This is OK.

[patch] pr/54508: fix incomplete debug information for class

If the only reference in a source file is to a static method of a class, then GCC would output debug information for the class name but not any of its members or base classes. The attached patch fixes this by having prune_unused_types_mark mark all of the parent's children if the parent DIE

[Bug debug/49459] attribute((mode(byte))) in a typedef produces wrong debug information

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49459 --- Comment #3 from Paul Koning paul_koning at dell dot com 2012-09-13 18:52:51 UTC --- I spent some time trying to figure this out. The offending code seems to be the prune_unused_types machinery. If there is a reference to a static method

[Bug debug/49459] attribute((mode(byte))) in a typedef produces wrong debug information

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49459 --- Comment #4 from Paul Koning paul_koning at dell dot com 2012-09-13 21:18:17 UTC --- Sorry, please disregard the previous comment, I put it on the wrong bug.

[Bug debug/54508] Wrong debug information emitted if data members not referenced

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54508 --- Comment #1 from Paul Koning paul_koning at dell dot com 2012-09-13 21:21:58 UTC --- I spent some time trying to figure this out. The offending code seems to be the prune_unused_types machinery. If there is a reference to a static method

[Bug target/43168] internal compiler error for xgcc when building gcc for pdp11-unknown-aout

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43168 Paul Koning paul_koning at dell dot com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED

Bug in bitfield handling?

This seems to be a bug: struct bug { int f1:1; unsigned long long f2:31; }; struct bug test = { 1, 0x8000ULL }; int main (int c, char **v) { unsigned long long tf2; tf2 = test.f2 16; if (tf2 == 0x8000ULL) return 0; return 1; } Since the underlying type

Re: Bug in bitfield handling?

On Sep 7, 2012, at 2:02 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote: On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 10:57 AM, paul_kon...@dell.com wrote: This seems to be a bug: struct bug { int f1:1; unsigned long long f2:31; }; struct bug test = { 1, 0x8000ULL }; int main (int c, char **v) { unsigned long long

[Bug debug/54508] New: Wrong debug information emitted if data members not referenced

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54508 Bug #: 54508 Summary: Wrong debug information emitted if data members not referenced Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.7.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

Re: C++ conversion? Why still .c (not .cc) files and CC (not CXX) in Makefile.in?

On Aug 28, 2012, at 9:45 AM, Michael Matz wrote: Hi, On Tue, 28 Aug 2012, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: Or do we have a rule than any file using C++ specific feature should be renamed from *.c to *.cc at the moment the C++ feature goes inside? We do not have such a rule and I would not

Size difference in base class between GCC releases

I'm doing some checking of data structure layouts in different releases of our code -- which were produced by different releases of GCC (3.3.3 vs. 4.5.4). One difference I'm seeing that is puzzling is in the handling of base classes. Specifically, the case where a base class has padding at the

Re: Size difference in base class between GCC releases

On Aug 27, 2012, at 3:33 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: On 27 August 2012 19:48, Paul_Koningwrote: I'm doing some checking of data structure layouts in different releases of our code -- which were produced by different releases of GCC (3.3.3 vs. 4.5.4). One difference I'm seeing that is

Re: Size difference in base class between GCC releases

On Aug 27, 2012, at 4:05 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 1:48 PM, paul_kon...@dell.com wrote: I'm doing some checking of data structure layouts in different releases of our code -- which were produced by different releases of GCC (3.3.3 vs. 4.5.4). One difference

Re: ISL install troubles

On Aug 14, 2012, at 4:17 AM, Richard Guenther wrote: On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 6:25 PM, paul_kon...@dell.com wrote: Where does one go to report issues with ISL? Since GCC doesn't build without it, I'm trying to install ISL from sources. That doesn't work. It accepts --with-gmp but there

Re: ISL install troubles

On Aug 14, 2012, at 4:17 AM, Richard Guenther wrote: On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 6:25 PM, paul_kon...@dell.com wrote: Where does one go to report issues with ISL? Since GCC doesn't build without it, I'm trying to install ISL from sources. That doesn't work. It accepts --with-gmp but there

50% slowdown with LTO

I'm not sure what LTO is supposed to do -- the documentation is not exactly clear. But I assumed it should make things faster and/or smaller. So I tried using it on an application -- a processor emulator, CPU intensive code, a lot of 64 bit integer arithmetic. Using a compile/assembler run on

gcc trunk fails to build without isl/cloog

The installation instructions seem to imply that GCC can be built without having ISL and/or CLOOG installed, and the configure script accepts --without-isl and --without-cloog. But I can't build that. Reading the installation instructions makes me expect that such a configuration would skip

  1   2   >